Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued

From: Aaron Swartz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:42:36 -0600

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> The only way to resolve this issue properly would be to require every
> submission to an IETF mailing list to be cryptographically signed
> [and] to require the subscribers to register their signing key

And how do we prevent spammers from registering their signing key? Are
you suggesting that we change the IETF's open enrollment policy?

-- 
Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com]

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:28:57 -0800

This whole discussion should be taken to the
YWKTIEDNWWFALNORIBNLTICSADEWSIFOSTFSTNOML working group. (yes we know
that internet email does not work well for a large number of reasons,
including but not limited to, incorrect code, spam and dare we say it
failure of smtp to fully support the needs of mailing lists).

The only way to resolve this issue properly would be to require every
submission to an IETF mailing list to be cryptographically signed (PGP
or S/MIME), to require the subscribers to register their signing key and
to then filter the mail sent out on the list so that only signed mail
gets through.

While this would require a moderate degree of work on the part of the
list users it would eliminate the need for moderator action. Problem
posters could be dealt with by means of  a formal process.

Thawte still provides free S/MIME certificates, however for the purposes
of this proposal it would suffice to use a self signed certificate.

SPAM is becomming a serious problem - as Bersnteins own rather offensive
spam protection measures atest. The only way to resolve that problem in
the long run is to start authenticating the good signal at source. The
strategy of attempting to isolate the bad signal from the good is
failling progressively as the spam companies employ counter measures.

The relevance of this to DNS is that the ability to authenticate an SRV
record provides an imense amount of leverage in automating this process.
For example I can have some form of information service set up linked to
the DNS that tells people that I sign every one of my emails without
exception and that any unsigned mail message can be rejected.

SPAM is a security problem. If we don't fix it the signal to noise ratio
will fall way below acceptable levels for many users.

	Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 8:00 AM
> To: D. J. Bernstein
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued
>
>
> [ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam,
> it is easy to miss
>   and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish
> to regularly
>   post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing
> list, send a
>   message to <listname>[email-masked] and ask to have
> the alternate
>   address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
>   automatically accepted. ]
>
> On 29 Nov 2002, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > Keith claims that allowing ``contributions from outsiders'' requires
> > delay and manual review. That claim is absurd. Immediately
> bounce the
> > message to the ``outsider,'' with instructions explaining
> how to have
> > the message sent to subscribers; end of problem.
>
> No, it's not 'end of problem'.
>
> If I cross-post a reply to some message with was cross-posted
> to a list
> I'm subscribed at and a list I'm not, in the general case I
> do *not* want
> to subscribe to the other list to be able to send my
> cross-post reply to
> both.
>
> Waiting for moderator approval is just fine for me, much better than
> requiring to subscribe or do something else.
>
> It's not black and white.
>
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
>
>
>
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to
> [email-masked] with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:43:43 -0500

> to then filter the mail sent out on the list so that only signed mail

OK.. Almost plausible.  However note that currently, the PGP web-of-trust
covers only a small percentage of the subscribers to the IETF list, and
there's no *really* good PKI for S/MIME yet (hint - we don't seem to even
understand how to apply 'basicConstraints', so if you think we're going to
have working CRLs anytime soon, please share the name and address of your
pharmaceutical supplier.. ;)

> of this proposal it would suffice to use a self signed certificate.

Unfortunately, although a self-signed cert works really nicely for some
purposes (for instance, it's quite sufficient to get an SSL tunnel started
so passive snooping doesn't work), it's inadequate here.

The problem is that there's no good way to tell my self-signed cert from
Dan Bernstein's self-signed cert from J. Slimy Spammer's self-signed cert.
I'd be interested in knowing what quality of a self-signed cert would
denote that the poster was possessed of the Non-Spammer Nature.

I propose to you that using a Thawte free S/MIME cert proves approximately
zero - a spammer can just get one for each run (and remember that no matter
how much a spammer tries to hid their identity, they *still* have to provide
a working way to reach them (via smtp or http or whatever) or they don't get
any feedback....)

/Valdis